How to Deal With Cheaters and the Ethics of Infidelity

[Char. Limit]

Well, I have already, to myself, defined cheating as akin to a crime. Yes, it is not a crime, but I feel that cheating is much worse than some of the felonies we have. This is from where I gain the idea of Y being an accessory to X's crime. Sure, X did the crime, but Y helped X. Why should Y get off scot-free?

I like my usage of letters to represent people. Now I see why logicians do that.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes, I am an accessory of her right to enjoy life =)

Now you're just baiting.

Well, I have already, to myself, defined cheating as akin to a crime. Yes, it is not a crime, but I feel that cheating is much worse than some of the felonies we have. This is from where I gain the idea of Y being an accessory to X's crime. Sure, X did the crime, but Y helped X. Why should Y get off scot-free?

I like my usage of letters to represent people. Now I see why logicians do that.

I can see where your personal beliefs may lead you to feel that way. Perhaps it would be helpful to look at it as though the relationship with the person whom you are involved with is really the only thing you need to resolve. You can safely leave the fate of the other individual to take care of itself and it should not effect your life any. Its worth noting that most people who wind up in relationships with people who cheated on their partner with them wind up getting cheated on by that same person.

 

[DanP]

Now you're just baiting.

... with no ill will

 

[DanP]

A. For a male, in case he is cheated, what do you think is harder:

- the fact he has to cope with trust issues
- swallow his pride

I would dare to say that swallowing the pride is harder for males. A loss of status is humiliating and anecdotal observation says that humiliation is the hardest emotion to cope/forget, and the one you are most likely to revenge. After all, it would also explain why in many males the reaction against the cheating female is mild, while they feel a great urge to break the bones of the male with whom the female cheated, and many will go for it if they feel they can get away with the legal consequences of an assault.

B. Do you believe that males have a hard time to cope with "lost trust" and delayed trust issues ? Since every person has to gain your trust, it really doesn't appear to be such a big deal to me, and delayed trust issues should be close to non-existent. But again, we are different. What do you think is statistically significant ?

 

[Char. Limit]

It's not just "lost trust". If you think of trust as, say, a number line, "lost trust" would place the trust level at zero. Cheating goes farther, possibly going to a high negative number.

I might say "lost trust and gained mistrust".

 

[DanP]

It's not just "lost trust". If you think of trust as, say, a number line, "lost trust" would place the trust level at zero. Cheating goes farther, possibly going to a high negative number.

I might say "lost trust and gained mistrust".

That is covered in delayed trust issues.

 

[magnusrobot12]

i did not read the original post but only the title. Basically, if someone cheats they will cheat always. i am not saying if you are 16 and you cheated on your GF once because your balls are blue and you don't know what the hell is going on, then maybe you will not be a cheater for life. cheater for life are people who habitually cheat or have a mistress. stay away from them.

 

[Char. Limit]

And this just proves that you should read more than the title. Even the first post would have helped greatly.

After all, what we were discussing is close to what you are discussing only in subject matter.

And women cheat too. It's just that many people believe that if the woman cheats, it's the man's fault, and if the man cheats, it's the man's fault.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And women cheat too. It's just that many people believe that if the woman cheats, it's the man's fault, and if the man cheats, it's the man's fault.

I think that this goes both ways. Males think poorly of females who cheat but many highfive the guy who screwed around with that hot chick from the bar. Women think poorly of men who cheat but many of them support the woman who has relationship troubles and seeks comfort from another man.
This is just based on personal observation though.

 

[DanP]

I think that this goes both ways. Males think poorly of females who cheat but many highfive the guy who screwed around with that hot chick from the bar. Women think poorly of men who cheat but many of them support the woman who has relationship troubles and seeks comfort from another man.
This is just based on personal observation though.

And so, the battle of sexes continues. And it will forever. I believe sociobiology got it right, and has a decent insight in some of the social behavior of both sexes.

But leaving aside this, the biggest influence in my life this battles has is the fact it fuels the sitcom industry. And sitcoms make me laugh :P If man and women would not be different, 90% of the sitcoms would cease to exist.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If man and women would not be different, 90% of the sitcoms would cease to exist.

Only 90%? I can not at the moment think of one that does not play on male/female stereotypes.

 

[Char. Limit]

I thought that was the basis of situational comedy...

In a sitcom, the head of the house will always be a bumbling idiot dad, sometimes abusive, always a lover of sandwiches (ok, maybe not always).

His wife (and he almost always will have one) is mean, smart, often abusive.

Their son will skateboard, do badly in school, usw.

Their daughter will be a prep, often speak in some variant of valley girl, get good grades, and obsess with her hair.

Season to taste and you have a "brand new" TV show.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I like UCLA women.

 

[Astronuc]

For very long term relationships, which spawned many years, I believe that both man and women should be allowed some "indiscretions". It's damn hard (not impossible) to sleep with the same person for 7 years. It's not always a indication that something is wrong. It really may be a great relation. A **short** adventure is IMO sometimes beneficial. The policy should be "don't tell, don't ask". No knowledge, nobody gets hurt, both partners benefit individually from their respective indiscretions. But if it becomes a habit for any of the persons involved a relation, than it's bad.

I've been with the same woman for nearly 30 years. It's not really that hard or difficult. One just does it. Sure there can be temptation, but then one does not act on it. It's not clear to me that either partner benefits from an indiscretion, and it more likely to cause psychological pain than any benefit. In some cultures, it seems to be expected or even condoned, and some seem resigned to that. However, I think on a personal level, any person whose partner has cheated feels hurt.

When one enters a bilateral relationship, one becomes responsible for the others feelings, and one sacrifices complete independence for a mutual and interdependent relationship.

If one is faced with a partner who has cheated then one has to weigh a number of factors, such as the length of the relationship, the benefits/liabilities of the relationship, the ability to trust the other person and so on. In the end, one has to make the choice that one can live with.

 

[DanP]

I've been with the same woman for nearly 30 years. It's not really that hard or difficult. One just does it.

You are a lucky man.

Sure there can be temptation, but then one does not act on it.

Ideally, indeed you don't. You have the liberty to choose how to act. (Impulse control disorders notwithstanding).

It's not clear to me that either partner benefits from an indiscretion, and it more likely to cause psychological pain than any benefit.

We are different individuals. We don't relate to life in the same way. We react differently to different psychological stimulus. Id only say that a man can easily figure out after a long relation if his women would fancy an indiscretion. If she does, well, set her free. Yeah, you have to fight a little against biology, but I can't deny to the other one what I sometimes wanted. I lived this situation, so I am not speaking only to hear my voice.

When one enters a bilateral relationship, one becomes responsible for the others feelings, and one sacrifices complete independence for a mutual and interdependent relationship.

Im a couple of years past mid 30s, and I never wanted to sacrifice my independence. I desired no marriage, never felt the need of happily ever after, the idea of settling down never appealed to me. I am too young. Serial monogamy works well for me. Id say I am pretty considerate in my longer term relationships, and a committed partner. Is just that I never considerated the possibility of life time bonding.

If one is faced with a partner who has cheated then one has to weigh a number of factors, such as the length of the relationship, the benefits/liabilities of the relationship, the ability to trust the other person and so on. In the end, one has to make the choice that one can live with.

Undoubtedly.

 

[Huckleberry]

Well, I have already, to myself, defined cheating as akin to a crime. Yes, it is not a crime, but I feel that cheating is much worse than some of the felonies we have. This is from where I gain the idea of Y being an accessory to X's crime. Sure, X did the crime, but Y helped X. Why should Y get off scot-free?

I like my usage of letters to represent people. Now I see why logicians do that.

If Y is aware of the relationship between X and Z then Y has reason to believe that Z will be harmed if Y is intimate with X. Y also has reason to believe that Z will want to return the favor in a similarly physically intimate manner.

Conversely, if Y performs some act of kindness towards X then Z is not contractually obligated to perform a like kindness towards Y, but may be inclined to do so because Z loves X.

Whomever honors X honors Z, and whomever dishonors X dishonors Z. There is an emotional bond in an equal relationship that is defiled by infidelity. Anyone who's ever been cheated on can feel the betrayal of trust.

It may not be illegal to cheat, and there may be no contractual obligation between Y and Z, but it isn't an innocent act to intentionally cause harm to another person. I think your instincts are right.

 

[Moonbear]

Wow, so much thought into a theory on how to deal with a cheater. I don't know why people make it so complicated. If someone is cheating on you, it's because they aren't all that into you and need another person to satisfy some important part of their needs in a relationship. And, to top it off, they didn't have the courage to admit to the first person that they weren't all that into them and wanted to break up. So, yes, the simple, obvious solution is that if someone is cheating on you, the relationship is broken already and should be ended.

 

[DanP]

If someone is cheating on you, it's because they aren't all that into you and need another person to satisfy some important part of their needs in a relationship. .

Yeah, but some seem to need Xanax to deal with "betrayal" Life is, most of the time pretty straightforward, and, may I add, usually pretty fair. What goes around, comes around.

 

[DanP]

It may not be illegal to cheat, and there may be no contractual obligation between Y and Z, but it isn't an innocent act to intentionally cause harm to another person. I think your instincts are right.

Well. Problem with "instincts" in this matter is that they are shaped by an obscure set of social norms, which are not observed by all humans. They are not instinct at all, but conformity. "You shall not commit adultery." An ancient , religious, deprecated view. NO ONE owns another person. Not even with the so called 'sacred' bond of matrimony.

I repeat, there is nothing wrong in hitting any women whatsoever from my perspective. A married women is fair game.

 

[Kajahtava]

She is no different person than before. She still is, as she was, a person that would potentially succumb to cheating. If you thought she wasn't, you have simply never known her well; one could wonder the base of your feelings then.

Otherwise, let's say you never found out? you would then still live in the idea that she wasn't cheating.

I wouldn't hate people for their actions though, that's naïve, I fully believe that every person on the planet, Ghandi included is fully capable of murder or rape when the right stimuli are given, I find it better to like or dislike people on what they are, id est, how much stimuli is required for them to cross that line. As I said, she still is the same person as before.

 

[GeorginaS]

Yeah, but some seem to need Xanax to deal with "betrayal" Life is, most of the time pretty straightforward, and, may I add, usually pretty fair. What goes around, comes around.

I beg to differ. There's nothing inherently "fair" about life in the least. There are no direct patterns. There is no one running show and keeping track and meting out just desserts.

I also find it disturbing (although maybe I'm misinterpreting your use of the "devil" face as mockery) that you find other people's pain scorn worthy. Betrayal hurts. Period.

 

[GeorginaS]

I repeat, there is nothing wrong in hitting any women whatsoever from my perspective. A married women is fair game.

I'm going to assume you missed the word "on" in your sentence. Then again, maybe you don't see anything wrong with hitting women.

And yes, I see something wrong with making sexual advances on someone who you know has made a promise to another person. It's called respect and treating people and their choices with respect.

 

[Huckleberry]

Well. Problem with "instincts" in this matter is that they are shaped by an obscure set of social norms, which are not observed by all humans. They are not instinct at all, but conformity. "You shall not commit adultery." An ancient , religious, deprecated view. NO ONE owns another person. Not even with the so called 'sacred' bond of matrimony.

I repeat, there is nothing wrong in hitting any women whatsoever from my perspective. A married women is fair game.

Instinct or conformity, in most parts of the world it is reasonable for Y to believe that a relationship is monogamous. X and Z may have a monogamous relationship and not be religious at all. No one owns another person, but a monogamous relationship is an agreement between two people. People are expected to uphold their agreements, or to at least exit them honorably. That is why clandestine sex outside a monogamous relationship is called cheating. They aren't playing by the agreed upon rules of monogamy.

Moonie, You're right about the relationship already being broken if someone is willing to cheat, though sometimes a relationship can seem to be going well before the indiscretion. There isn't always a clear progression from going well to being broken.

(I'm trying to imagine if I were married and my wife said to me, "You don't own me. I can have sex with whomever I want." That would be the end of that marriage. Sure, I don't own her, but it doesn't follow from that she shouldn't uphold her commitments.)

 

[Dembadon]

Well. Problem with "instincts" in this matter is that they are shaped by an obscure set of social norms, which are not observed by all humans. They are not instinct at all, but conformity. "You shall not commit adultery." An ancient , religious, deprecated view. NO ONE owns another person. Not even with the so called 'sacred' bond of matrimony.

I repeat, there is nothing wrong in hitting any women whatsoever from my perspective. A married women is fair game.

One does not have to be religious to hold integrity and honesty high in priority. The very use of the word "cheater" implies there was a mutual agreement that was not honored. Mutual agreements between two people exist everywhere; independent of one's religious beliefs and/or view of marriage.

 

[Kajahtava]

I'm going to assume you missed the word "on" in your sentence. Then again, maybe you don't see anything wrong with hitting women.

And yes, I see something wrong with making sexual advances on someone who you know has made a promise to another person. It's called respect and treating people and their choices with respect.

Maybe the point is, by making a commitment those two people make an agreement to not to extracurricular stuff. I see no reason other people should keep to an agreement, or rather, help them keep to it, an agreement two people made, why should other people help them with it?

I never made an agreement with any-one that I should not go after married game?

Of course, this situation solves itself if you only make those agreements with people that can keep them, that's a false illusion mostly. Remember, it's not only about a person cheating, it's also about finding out.

Ask yourself, of all the times you found out that a partner cheated, or heard a person finding out, in how many cases did they find out, and in how many cases did they confess?

Let's say for sake of argument it's 50/50? And let's say for sake of argument you only find out in half the cases, a generous estimate, I'm more willing to say you only find out in 10% of the cases, especially people that are naïve and narcissistic enough to trust their significant other. That means that half the people tell they cheated, and in half the times they cheated and didn't tell you find out on yourself. So that means that still 25% of cases you never find out about.

Thinking your significant other doesn't cheat because you haven't fund out yet or he or she hasn't told you yet is blatantly naïve. Stay one step ahead of your enemies, and two steps ahead of your friends.

 

[ViewsofMars]

"

I repeat, there is nothing wrong in hitting any women whatsoever from my perspective. A married women is fair game.

"
- - -
Have you logically considered the consequences of what you have written DanL?

1. Lawsuit
2. Encouring children or adults to hit his or her mother and/or wife or a stranger who is a female.
3. Setting a very bad example of abuse.
4. No respect for females.

Food for thought! And, I'll be very honest with you, Dan, your statement is that of an irrational person.

 

[Huckleberry]

If one can't trust their partner then what point is there to having any relationship with them? Treating a partner as if they were untrustworthy and then expecting them to be trustworthy hardly condones intimacy or equality in a relationship.

Ghandi could never let me down if I treat him like a murderer and a rapist, but he can't lift me up if I don't trust that his intentions follow his words and deeds. Trust is not a naive gullibility. Paranoia is a delusion.

 

[Char. Limit]

I like many, will assume that Dan either meant "hit on" or "hit" as in "have sex with".

Dan, people like you are the reason that many men and women REALLY don't like it when their spouses go to a bar or somewhere alone. The faithful ones are worried that their spouse will meet up with someone like you, someone who thinks that there's "absolutely nothing wrong" with tempting their spouses to cheating.

Remind me to never let any future wife near you, Dan.

 

[ViewsofMars]

"

I wouldn't hate people for their actions though, that's naïve, I fully believe that every person on the planet, Ghandi included is fully capable of murder or rape when the right stimuli are given, I find it better to like or dislike people on what they are, id est, how much stimuli is required for them to cross that line. As I said, she still is the same person as before.

"
---
Really? So Kajahtava, have you ever seen (stimuli) someone crossing the line murdering or raping someone? I do think that if a loved one was murdered or raped, it would be normal to have a full range of emotions such as hatred, anger, etc. As far as Ghandi is concerned I personally don't think he is 'fully capable of murder or rape when the right stimuli are given' as you have noted. It's very harmful to throw out a famous, well-known peaceful person such as Ghandi and infer "your" idea of murder and rape would apply to him.

---
"

I like many, will assume that Dan either meant "hit on" or "hit" as in "have sex with".

Dan, people like you are the reason that many men and women REALLY don't like it when their spouses go to a bar or somewhere alone. The faithful ones are worried that their spouse will meet up with someone like you, someone who thinks that there's "absolutely nothing wrong" with tempting their spouses to cheating.

Remind me to never let any future wife near you, Dan.

"
---
Hi Car. Limit, he may have subconciously been telling the truth. I can only go off of what Dan wrote as I've noted in my previous posting to him. Car.Limit, a muture, sensible woman who might be having a cocktail in a lounge after a business meeting or after a play with a group of ladies (Girl's night out inclusive of married and non-married women.) doesn't mean they would be *tempted* by DanL. I do hope when you do marry that the woman wants to cuddle up with only with you.

 

[Kajahtava]

Really? So Kajahtava, have you ever seen (stimuli) someone crossing the line murdering or raping someone?

Well, garbage in, garbage out nay? It sort of rationally follows from the structure of the human nervous system.

There must be some configurations of nerves to start firing to eventually result into getting a knife and stabbing a person. Don't know what it is, but there simply must be one, this can be a magnetic spool put to your brain at the right moment in the far extreme.

I do think that if a loved one was murdered or raped, it would be normal to have a full range of emotions such as hatred, anger, etc.

It would, but I fail to see your point. Likewise, it is normal to murder a person who's a loved one in some situations.

The murderer is seldom without friends, many of whom are unaware of the murderer's nature, some are but love the murderer regardless. Most parents would still love their child though being aware of their child's aggression disorders and knowing that he could snap and kill a man, put again against his head, pull his trigger; then he's dead.

As far as Ghandi is concerned I personally don't think he is 'fully capable of murder or rape when the right stimuli are given' as you have noted. It's very harmful to throw out a famous, well-known peaceful person such as Ghandi and infer "your" idea of murder and rape would apply to him.

Well, as I said, garbage in, garbage out.

A human central nervous system is still understood as being simply a swarm intelligence, simply put, each neuron gets fired at in some configuration, and fires outward again, causing a cascade which will eventually result into things like that when the image of a cake falls onto your retinae, you eat it. There must be some configuration of 'fires' starting to result into people getting an axe and chopping a head off.

It's like stepping through a wall, small chance, higher chance that your hand randomly explodes in a gory configuration, but still a chance there.

Besides, if you accept QM, you have to accept in the end that all people are capable of murder, albeit not deterministically.

By the way, this comes from a person who refuses to fight back once he's being attack because he first wants to hear what the other person has to say to defend his or her actions, it might be justified, nay?